Student rights and community understanding

[Guest Paul]

Last evening I attended meet-the-candidates night at Garfield School. Four of the five Board candidates were there, all except Ms. Santos. I asked some questions, and I believe Mr. Paszkiewicz, who was also there, asked a question.

I cannot be certain Mr. Paszkiewicz asked this question, but he did fill out a card, and I presume that he did ask this. He stated that three Christian students’ rights have recently been violated. One was a student who was not allowed to pray at lunch (I think it was lunch). Another was a student whose letter to the troops was censored because it contained a Christian reference. I do not recall the third incident, but it was of a similar character.

Mr. Paszkiewicz’s question for the Board members was whether the teachers are now fearful because of what happened in his case, and are over-reacting. If they are, they have no reason to be.

The problem, if there is one, is not fear, but misunderstanding. The legal distinction is abundantly clear. That was the purpose of the ADL training. The students may express their religious views in school. Teachers and other school employees and officials are restricted.

If any of these incidents occurred, it was wrong. The students should have been allowed to express themselves.

You may notice that we have not protested the formation of the Christian club at the high school, advised by Mr. Paszkiewicz. That is because as far as we know the club is operating within the law. As long as it does so, it will have only our good wishes.

It is a pity that Mr. Paszkiewicz and his supporters refuse to make any attempt to speak with me. There is room for common ground. Had he, or any of these students, come to me, I would have defended their right to express themselves as vigorously as I pressed the case that Mr. Paszkiewicz was out of line.

I am very sorry that the incident struck some raw nerves, and opened wounds that apparently will not heal, but it is time to get past it and look for common ground. I considered this to be a moral obligation when I was a practicing Christian, and I still do, no less now than then. Misunderstanding persists because one side refuses to talk to the other.

So I take this opportunity again to invite a dialogue between the opposing sides. My number is in the book, and Mr. Paszkiewicz has my permission to send a note to Matthew, who is in school every day, through the office of the principal or the guidance counselor. Actually, he doesn’t need my permission, because Matthew is now eighteen.

I take this opportunity also to welcome my friend Gene Queval to KOTW. He is a marvelous man with an enormous heart and a terrific sense of humor. Thank you for your post, Gene, and welcome.

[gqueval]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your kind words.

The saddest truth is that victimization and martydom are proven sellers of religious extremism. There is no archeological evidence that proves Moses or his people were slaves in Egypt yet that story is used to incite. It is the undergirding of Christianity that god needed to experience the pain and death of his only child in order to be convinced that humankind was worthy of heavenly access. And of course there's the one about those virgins you get in heaven when you kill infidels. (I hope that this is true and that the virgins are 90 year old nuns.)

Creationism does not rise to the level of theory. Good science always holds the possibility that a new discovery will prove or disprove an earlier theory.

I have a peculiar notion that it might take something like making great Humanists like Reverend Ross Henry or Robert Tapp face lions at the Meadowlands in order to get the word out about the great ideas of humanism.

Warmest regards to the LaClaire family,

Gene

Last evening I attended meet-the-candidates night at Garfield School. Four of the five Board candidates were there, all except Ms. Santos. I asked some questions, and I believe Mr. Paszkiewicz, who was also there, asked a question.

I cannot be certain Mr. Paszkiewicz asked this question, but he did fill out a card, and I presume that he did ask this. He stated that three Christian students’ rights have recently been violated. One was a student who was not allowed to pray at lunch (I think it was lunch). Another was a student whose letter to the troops was censored because it contained a Christian reference. I do not recall the third incident, but it was of a similar character.

Mr. Paszkiewicz’s question for the Board members was whether the teachers are now fearful because of what happened in his case, and are over-reacting. If they are, they have no reason to be.

The problem, if there is one, is not fear, but misunderstanding. The legal distinction is abundantly clear. That was the purpose of the ADL training. The students may express their religious views in school. Teachers and other school employees and officials are restricted.

If any of these incidents occurred, it was wrong. The students should have been allowed to express themselves.

You may notice that we have not protested the formation of the Christian club at the high school, advised by Mr. Paszkiewicz. That is because as far as we know the club is operating within the law. As long as it does so, it will have only our good wishes.

It is a pity that Mr. Paszkiewicz and his supporters refuse to make any attempt to speak with me. There is room for common ground. Had he, or any of these students, come to me, I would have defended their right to express themselves as vigorously as I pressed the case that Mr. Paszkiewicz was out of line.

I am very sorry that the incident struck some raw nerves, and opened wounds that apparently will not heal, but it is time to get past it and look for common ground. I considered this to be a moral obligation when I was a practicing Christian, and I still do, no less now than then. Misunderstanding persists because one side refuses to talk to the other.

So I take this opportunity again to invite a dialogue between the opposing sides. My number is in the book, and Mr. Paszkiewicz has my permission to send a note to Matthew, who is in school every day, through the office of the principal or the guidance counselor. Actually, he doesn’t need my permission, because Matthew is now eighteen.

I take this opportunity also to welcome my friend Gene Queval to KOTW. He is a marvelous man with an enormous heart and a terrific sense of humor. Thank you for your post, Gene, and welcome.

[Bryan]

Last evening I attended meet-the-candidates night at Garfield School. Four of the five Board candidates were there, all except Ms. Santos. I asked some questions, and I believe Mr. Paszkiewicz, who was also there, asked a question.

I cannot be certain Mr. Paszkiewicz asked this question, but he did fill out a card, and I presume that he did ask this. He stated that three Christian students’ rights have recently been violated. One was a student who was not allowed to pray at lunch (I think it was lunch). Another was a student whose letter to the troops was censored because it contained a Christian reference. I do not recall the third incident, but it was of a similar character.

Mr. Paszkiewicz’s question for the Board members was whether the teachers are now fearful because of what happened in his case, and are over-reacting. If they are, they have no reason to be.

The problem, if there is one, is not fear, but misunderstanding. The legal distinction is abundantly clear. That was the purpose of the ADL training. The students may express their religious views in school. Teachers and other school employees and officials are restricted.

If any of these incidents occurred, it was wrong. The students should have been allowed to express themselves.

Bah. I believe I predicted that your machinations would produce a chilling effect on proper religious free speech. You denied it then, as I recall. Now there is evidence to support the prediction, but no acknowledgment from you of a correlation and no expression of regret over the outcome.

Just an apparently puzzled Well, that shouldn't have happened.

[Guest Guest]

Bah. I believe I predicted that your machinations would produce a chilling effect on proper religious free speech. You denied it then, as I recall. Now there is evidence to support the prediction, but no acknowledgment from you of a correlation and no expression of regret over the outcome.

Just an apparently puzzled Well, that shouldn't have happened.

A hearsay claim from Paszkiewicz is not evidence.

By your bizarre "logic," we should suspend all laws, since someone might not understand them.

[Bryan]

The saddest truth is that victimization and martydom are proven sellers of religious extremism.

Not counting the victimization of Paul and Matthew LaClair, of course.

There is no archeological evidence that proves Moses or his people were slaves in Egypt yet that story is used to incite.

The story is used to incite? Where and how?

It is the undergirding of Christianity that god needed to experience the pain and death of his only child in order to be convinced that humankind was worthy of heavenly access.

Huh? Who says?

The traditional doctrine is that Adam and Eve possessed heavenly access regardless of the reasoning you suggest above, and sin broke the relationship. The sufferings of Christ as far as I know are never referred to as providing the rationale for Christ's sacrifice (on the contrary, the plan of redemption is implied as an eternal expectation).

Were you ordained by the Universal Life church or what? What do they charge these days for the paperwork?

Heh. It's free these days!

http://www.themonastery.org/?destination=ordination

Creationism does not rise to the level of theory.

Neither does ethics in the sense you're apparently using the term.

Good science always holds the possibility that a new discovery will prove or disprove an earlier theory.

Including the theory that good science always hold the possibility that a new discover will prove or disprove an earlier theory?

Or does that not rise to the level of "theory" either?

I have a peculiar notion that it might take something like making great Humanists like Reverend Ross Henry or Robert Tapp face lions at the Meadowlands in order to get the word out about the great ideas of humanism.

So there's no use asking you about those great ideas, I suppose.

[Guest Guest]

Bah. I believe I predicted that your machinations would produce a chilling effect on proper religious free speech. You denied it then, as I recall. Now there is evidence to support the prediction, but no acknowledgment from you of a correlation and no expression of regret over the outcome.

Just an apparently puzzled Well, that shouldn't have happened.

Bah? Are you Doctor Doom now?

Actually, that would explain a lot.

[Bryan]

A hearsay claim from Paszkiewicz is not evidence.

Sure it is, unless you're committing a fallacy of equivocation.

You're not committing a fallacy of equivocation, are you?

By your bizarre "logic," we should suspend all laws, since someone might not understand them.

Riiiight. Try to put that reductio ad absurdum in a deductive syllogism someday. See how far you get.

[gqueval]

Not counting the victimization of Paul and Matthew LaClair, of course.

Neither Paul nr Matt can be called proven sellers of religious extremism. There are no wildly successful humanist organizations.

The story is used to incite? Where and how?

The Middle East with weapons.

Huh? Who says?

The traditional doctrine is that Adam and Eve possessed heavenly access regardless of the reasoning you suggest above, and sin broke the relationship. The sufferings of Christ as far as I know are never referred to as providing the rationale for Christ's sacrifice (on the contrary, the plan of redemption is implied as an eternal expectation).

I will not dispute your understandings. I do not believe that a kind deity would require human sacrifice.

Were you ordained by the Universal Life church or what? What do they charge these days for the paperwork?

Nasty tone, but since you asked, I completed the master of humanist leadership studies at the Humanist Institute. The current tuition rates are available online.

The actual ordination was by recommendation and authorized by the American Humanist Association division of Humanist Certification

Heh. It's free these days!

http://www.themonastery.org/?destination=ordination

Ha Ha. ?

Neither does ethics in the sense you're apparently using the term.

Correct!

Including the theory that good science always hold the possibility that a new discover will prove or disprove an earlier theory?

Or does that not rise to the level of "theory" either?

Wow you got another idea correct!

This is why good science is often done by deeply religious people such as Gallileo and Newton.

So there's no use asking you about those great ideas, I suppose.

Wrong! (And you were on a roll.) Ask me anything you like

[Bryan]

Neither Paul nr Matt can be called proven sellers of religious extremism. There are no wildly successful humanist organizations.

They sold their school project very effectively. Google "LaClair" and "Kearny." And they used victimization. Poor Matthew "Didn't feel safe." And his life was threatened. Did you know that?

The Middle East with weapons.

Uh--if they need the weapons for the inciting then how effective could the story be at the same task? Or is the story engraved on the rifle barrels and painted on the Katyushas?

I will not dispute your understandings. I do not believe that a kind deity would require human sacrifice.

Hence Christian theology teaches a god who is both kind and just, not just kind.

Were you ordained by the Universal Life church or what? What do they charge these days for the paperwork?

Nasty tone, but since you asked, I completed the master of humanist leadership studies at the Humanist Institute. The current tuition rates are available online.

The actual ordination was by recommendation and authorized by the American Humanist Association division of Humanist Certification

Nasty? Not at all, unless you consider a touch of ridicule out of place when you criticize an aspect of Christian theology about which you appear ignorant. Perhaps a master of humanist leadership studies can provide a superior account of the metaphysics of humanist ethics tha(n) can Paul LaClair (one should hope), however.

Bryan:

Neither does ethics in the sense you're apparently using the term.

Gene:

Correct!

Bryan:

Including the theory that good science always hold the possibility that a new discover will prove or disprove an earlier theory?

Or does that not rise to the level of "theory" either?

Gene:

Wow you got another idea correct!

This is why good science is often done by deeply religious people such as Gallileo and Newton.

You may have missed my point, there (perhaps indirectly owing to my typographical errors).

Bryan:

So there's no use asking you about those great ideas, I suppose.

Gene:

Wrong! (And you were on a roll.) Ask me anything you like

I'd like to hear your account of the metaphysics of humanist morality. You should probably start a fresh thread for its sake if you're game.

I don't expect an involved essay--just a sketch that will facilitate discussion. But if you prefer the essay approach that's fine with me.

[Guest Guest]

They sold their school project very effectively. Google "LaClair" and "Kearny." And they used victimization. Poor Matthew "Didn't feel safe." And his life was threatened. Did you know that?

Uh--if they need the weapons for the inciting then how effective could the story be at the same task? Or is the story engraved on the rifle barrels and painted on the Katyushas?

Hence Christian theology teaches a god who is both kind and just, not just kind.

Nasty tone, but since you asked, I completed the master of humanist leadership studies at the Humanist Institute. The current tuition rates are available online.

The actual ordination was by recommendation and authorized by the American Humanist Association division of Humanist Certification

Nasty? Not at all, unless you consider a touch of ridicule out of place when you criticize an aspect of Christian theology about which you appear ignorant. Perhaps a master of humanist leadership studies can provide a superior account of the metaphysics of humanist ethics that can Paul LaClair (one should hope), however.

You may have missed my point, there (perhaps indirectly owing to my typographical errors).

I'd like to hear your account of the metaphysics of humanist morality. You should probably start a fresh thread for its sake if you're game.

I don't expect an involved essay--just a sketch that will facilitate discussion. But if you prefer the essay approach that's fine with me.

Thus says Doom!

[Guest Guest]

Hence Christian theology teaches a god who is both kind and just, not just kind.

Ah, the indispensable Christian myth of the kindly god who torments you in a fire forever if you don't guess right about which of the many stories about him is true.

Say it as many times as you like, Bryan, it's neither kind nor just.

Oh, and if you're going to use those terms, you can't hide behind sentient rocks and moons made of cheese.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE

Neither Paul nr Matt can be called proven sellers of religious extremism. There are no wildly successful humanist organizations.

They sold their school project very effectively. Google "LaClair" and "Kearny." And they used victimization. Poor Matthew "Didn't feel safe." And his life was threatened. Did you know that?

They were effective, but they weren't selling extremism. They were fighting against it.

And Matt was a victim. I'll never forget the photo in the Jersey Journal the day after the story broke. He was ostracized, bullied and threatened, but he kept his cool, which is why people admire him. If you can't see that, that's your problem.

[Guest Guest]

I'd like to hear your account of the metaphysics of humanist morality. You should probably start a fresh thread for its sake if you're game.

I don't expect an involved essay--just a sketch that will facilitate discussion. But if you prefer the essay approach that's fine with me.

Don't worry, Reverend Gene. Bryan gets nasty with people when they have him cornered, and he doesn't understand that life is more than what you read in books, even the best books.

If you'd like a real hoot, read this:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=84427

[Guest Guest]

Bah. I believe I predicted that your machinations would produce a chilling effect on proper religious free speech. You denied it then, as I recall. Now there is evidence to support the prediction, but no acknowledgment from you of a correlation and no expression of regret over the outcome.

Just an apparently puzzled Well, that shouldn't have happened.

In other words, you take what someone said Paszkiewicz wrote at face value because if it was true, it would confirm your prediction. What a surprise.

What you've really told us, without meaning to, is how biblical prophecies "came true."

[Guest Guest]

Sure it is, unless you're committing a fallacy of equivocation.

You're not committing a fallacy of equivocation, are you?

Riiiight. Try to put that reductio ad absurdum in a deductive syllogism someday. See how far you get.

I don't know about that "reductio ad absurdum," as you call it, but I do know an absurd argument when I see one.

It’s tiresome because of how obvious it is, but since you asked, here’s the logic.

Your premise: If Matthew and Paul bring Paszkiewicz’s conduct to light and force action against it, proper religious speech will be chilled.

Fact: Matthew and Paul brought Paszkiewicz’s conduct to light and forced action against it.

Your assumption of fact (since there is no evidence to prove it, just an anonymous statement in a public meeting, it can’t be more than an assumption): Proper religious speech has been chilled in the Kearny school system.

Your conclusions: 1. It happened.

2. It happened because of the Paszkiewicz incident.

3. It happened because Matthew and Paul brought Paszkiewicz’s conduct to light and forced action against it.

Your fallacies: 1. You accepted the claims as facts.

2. Since you know nothing about the incidents, you have no basis for saying why they happened, if they happened at all.

3. Even if they happened because teachers were reacting to the Paszkiewicz matter, that would reflect misunderstanding on their part, since neither Paul nor Matthew ever said that students should not be allowed to express themselves freely in matters of religion. In fact, Paul made it clear that students should be allowed to do that. The law is also clear on that point.

The proper remedy is that teachers should understand the law, which is not complicated on this point. Not enforcing the law, which is what you're suggesting, is not a proper remedy, in fact it's no remedy at all. It is, however, what you wish had happened.

So:

1. Your so-called argument is merely a restatement of your own biases.

2. When you blame Paul and Matthew for incidents that may not even have happened, your argument is not valid.

[Bryan]

I don't know about that "reductio ad absurdum," as you call it, but I do know an absurd argument when I see one.

It’s tiresome because of how obvious it is, but since you asked, here’s the logic.

Your premise: If Matthew and Paul bring Paszkiewicz’s conduct to light and force action against it, proper religious speech will be chilled.

Fact: Matthew and Paul brought Paszkiewicz’s conduct to light and forced action against it.

Your assumption of fact (since there is no evidence to prove it, just an anonymous statement in a public meeting, it can’t be more than an assumption): Proper religious speech has been chilled in the Kearny school system.

Your conclusions: 1. It happened.

2. It happened because of the Paszkiewicz incident.

3. It happened because Matthew and Paul brought Paszkiewicz’s conduct to light and forced action against it.

You don't know an absurd argument when you see one, or else you wouldn't have posted.

From where to you draw my supposed conclusion "It happened"? I simply cited the evidence that it had happened.

From where did you get my supposed conclusion that it happened because of the actions of the LaClairs (2 and 3 are suitably identical). On the contrary, I predicted the chilling effect based on Supreme Court decisions touching Constitutional law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

I also drew on my personal experience of reading news accounts that indicate similar behaviors across the United States--a history that is well-known enough for Paul LaClair to refrain from expressing any great skepticism regarding the reports.

Your fallacies: 1. You accepted the claims as facts.

Baloney. I accept the claims as evidence that the events happened. You committed the fallacy in accepting my statements as an acceptance of the claims as facts.

2. Since you know nothing about the incidents, you have no basis for saying why they happened, if they happened at all.

Baloney. You don't know that I know nothing about the incidents, and I don't need any basis for saying why they happened. I predicted such events. It is for you to wonder how such a thing would be accurately predicted if my reasoning had been fallacious.

3. Even if they happened because teachers were reacting to the Paszkiewicz matter, that would reflect misunderstanding on their part, since neither Paul nor Matthew ever said that students should not be allowed to express themselves freely in matters of religion. In fact, Paul made it clear that students should be allowed to do that. The law is also clear on that point.

Yes, and?

Schools will do such things anyway because they fear lawsuits such as LaClair's. That's the point, and you can't dance around it.

The proper remedy is that teachers should understand the law, which is not complicated on this point. Not enforcing the law, which is what you're suggesting, is not a proper remedy, in fact it's no remedy at all. It is, however, what you wish had happened.

Meh. There was no law enforced and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. There is no law against what Paszkiewicz did except in the minds of adherents of the "Living Constitution" (the ones who can make the document say what they want it to say). Law enforcement was never involved. Instead, the ACLU and the LaClairs took the course of bullying the administration with the threat of lawsuit. When that type of thing happens the law goes out the window and the parties calculate according to the bottom line more often than not.

So:

1. Your so-called argument is merely a restatement of your own biases.

2. When you blame Paul and Matthew for incidents that may not even have happened, your argument is not valid.

Straw man fallacy x2. Congratulations for helping to confirm that your side of the argument lacks a representative sufficiently capable of logical reasoning to address it without committing an obvious fallacy.

Once again, a good thing that you remembered to post as "Guest."

[Bryan]

QUOTE

Neither Paul nr Matt can be called proven sellers of religious extremism. There are no wildly successful humanist organizations.

They were effective, but they weren't selling extremism. They were fighting against it.

Yet nobody else seemed to have Matthew's ... extreme courage to do something about it after all those years at Kearny.

Paul has long since painted his views at the extreme end of the religious and political spectrum.

And Matt was a victim.

Ah, yes. That proven method of promoting religious extremism. Victimhood.

I'll never forget the photo in the Jersey Journal the day after the story broke. He was ostracized, bullied and threatened, but he kept his cool, which is why people admire him. If you can't see that, that's your problem.

If you can't see the LaClairs using every bit of it to further their religious agenda, that's your problem.

More likely you simply agree with their religious agenda so you come to their defense as a knee-jerk response.

[Guest Gene Queval]

They sold their school project very effectively. Google "LaClair" and "Kearny." And they used victimization. Poor Matthew "Didn't feel safe." And his life was threatened. Did you know that?

Uh--if they need the weapons for the inciting then how effective could the story be at the same task? Or is the story engraved on the rifle barrels and painted on the Katyushas?

Hence Christian theology teaches a god who is both kind and just, not just kind.

Nasty tone, but since you asked, I completed the master of humanist leadership studies at the Humanist Institute. The current tuition rates are available online.

The actual ordination was by recommendation and authorized by the American Humanist Association division of Humanist Certification

Nasty? Not at all, unless you consider a touch of ridicule out of place when you criticize an aspect of Christian theology about which you appear ignorant. Perhaps a master of humanist leadership studies can provide a superior account of the metaphysics of humanist ethics tha(n) can Paul LaClair (one should hope), however.

You may have missed my point, there (perhaps indirectly owing to my typographical errors).

I'd like to hear your account of the metaphysics of humanist morality. You should probably start a fresh thread for its sake if you're game.

I don't expect an involved essay--just a sketch that will facilitate discussion. But if you prefer the essay approach that's fine with me.

I don’t have a metaphysical account of a humanist morality for myself let alone one to recommend to anyone else. The ethics and morals I claim are uniquely mine and they are the product of my parents, my family, my friends, my teachers, my local community, and my wider communities.

As a humanist minister I am hired to perform weddings and civil unions. I have never performed a ceremony that deliberately ridicules anyone’s faith. The process of ministering to a couple who have decided to make some particular expression of their relationship public to their friends and family is always an honor for me. I have provided service in the presence of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Ethical Culturists, Agnostics and Atheists. They are all potential references and it would be foolish to disrespect them.

I love superstition, mythology, and science fiction but I am uncomfortable with absolutism. The continual evolution of cults and sects among the various majority world views is the best reason for insisting that any particular viewpoint be promoted in proper forums and to an appropriate audience. These must be places where one is free to leave or disagree. Churches, Synagogues, Mosques and Temples are great places for exploring belief systems and dogmas. College level elective comparative religion courses are wonderful. Seminaries, monasteries, convents, yeshivas and ashrams are sanctuaries worth exploring if one has the mind to do so. Even community discussion forums such as this hold promise for the exchange of ideas and ideals.

Minor children in public classrooms are not free to leave or disagree. They are subjected to all types of cultural assaults from their own cohorts in terms that most adults recognize because they survived them. From the stereotypical greasers, druggies, jocks and nerds we know that many cruel and hurtful interactions occur. It is imperative that the public school teachers not contribute to the cruelties in school with their childish biases.

[WilliamK]

Yet nobody else seemed to have Matthew's ... extreme courage to do something about it after all those years at Kearny.

Paul has long since painted his views at the extreme end of the religious and political spectrum.

The extreme end? Do you propose that there is only one? Paszkiewicz' views are rather extreme as well (fire breathing dinosaurs on Noahs ark, hunted to extinction by humans). Do you think that extremity in that direction doesn't count?

And what's so extreme about Paul's views anyway? Do you think disbelief by itself is inherently extreme? When a teacher decides it's ok to make the rest of us pay him to teach OUR kids HIS religion, is it extreme to say that it is not his place to do that and to take him to task for it? Just what are these extreme views that you accuse Paul of expressing?

[Guest MO]

Why is everyone so afraid of words????

[Bryan]

I don’t have a metaphysical account of a humanist morality for myself let alone one to recommend to anyone else. The ethics and morals I claim are uniquely mine and they are the product of my parents, my family, my friends, my teachers, my local community, and my wider communities.

[...]

No metaphysical basis for your morality? Does that concern you at all? When your unique morals conflict with those of somebody else (as with your basis for objecting to the Christian account of salvation), do you not wonder whether there is a correct view?

Your sketch of your ministerial duties and views was interesting, but I thought I'd stick with what I had asked you about. Thanks for the reply.

[Guest Guest]

Yet nobody else seemed to have Matthew's ... extreme courage to do something about it after all those years at Kearny.

Correct. No one has. There's nothing uncommon about people not wanting to stand up and do what's right. It happens every day, all the time. Look up the Kitty Genovese story.

[Guest Guest]

From where to you draw my supposed conclusion "It happened"? I simply cited the evidence that it had happened.

From where did you get my supposed conclusion that it happened because of the actions of the LaClairs (2 and 3 are suitably identical). On the contrary, I predicted the chilling effect based on Supreme Court decisions touching Constitutional law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

I also drew on my personal experience of reading news accounts that indicate similar behaviors across the United States--a history that is well-known enough for Paul LaClair to refrain from expressing any great skepticism regarding the reports.

If this was an anonymous question from someone who wasn't confirming your biases, you wouldn't be calling it evidence. You're not fooling anyone except maybe yourself, Bryan.

Some Christians are constantly whining about being persecuted. What they would say if they were more intellectually honest about it is that they're not allowed to force their religion on everyone. So when you write of a chilling effect, an objective person must consider the source. If that source is David Paszkiewicz, then it's just the usual whine from someone who thinks he should be allowed to push his religion on everyone else.

And of course, you completely ignore the real problem, even assuming the stories to be true, which is ignorance. The solution is to educate teachers, not to refuse to uphold the law. In making the contrary argument, you're just making Matthew's case again. You're demonstrating that given a choice between upholding the law and ignoring it because you think it might in some way impede Christian evangelizing, you'll choose to ignore the law. That's exactly why this happened in the first place.

It's interesting, though, that you refer to the "chilling effect" of Supreme Court decisions. That's about as close as you ever come to admitting that these events happened because to uphold the law.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE

So:

1. Your so-called argument is merely a restatement of your own biases.

2. When you blame Paul and Matthew for incidents that may not even have happened, your argument is not valid.

Straw man fallacy x2. Congratulations for helping to confirm that your side of the argument lacks a representative sufficiently capable of logical reasoning to address it without committing an obvious fallacy.

Once again, a good thing that you remembered to post as "Guest."

In other words, you got your ass kicked so you assume Paul must have done it.

[Guest Bingo]

Don't worry, Reverend Gene. Bryan gets nasty with people when they have him cornered, and he doesn't understand that life is more than what you read in books, even the best books.

Uh, Bryan is an exceptionally intelligent, articulate and, at times, quite humorous individual who holds opinions contrary to those of Paul and Gene. Gene, and especially Paul, should be thankful for Bryan, as he questions their beliefs regularly, and does not allow them to skate when their logic is flawed. And while I am sure that someone constantly disagreeing with you can be frustrating (and submitting that Bryan's posts do not always share the grace of Emily Post), his efforts can only serve to help them arrive at their greater truths behind their beliefs - whatever that may be.

Likewise, Bryan should be appreciative of Paul and Gene for the same reasons. Their statements are at least an opportunity for Bryan to reconsider his beliefs, examine them, and then determine whether he remains of the same opinions. Such a process permanently changes our beliefs. Either we come to the conclusion that our beliefs are correct and, thusly, we hold them more fervently, OR we consider that our opinions our incomplete, and we open them to further possibilities. In either event, we are the better for the test.

I think that only beliefs well-tested, and tested again, are worthy of belief.